In Depth

Summary judgment was properly awarded to the owner of lake-front residential property in a man’s lawsuit filed after
he was seriously injured in a hammock accident while on her property uninvited, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Thursday.

In Jeremy D. Mohr v. Virginia B. Smith Revocable Trust and Virginia B. Smith, as Trustee of the Virginia
B. Smith Revocable Trust, 43A03-1306-CT-214, Grace College students Jeremy Mohr and Mallori Kastner entered property
owned by the Virginia B. Smith Revocable Trust and controlled by Smith two nights in a row to sit on a hammock that was strung
between two trees. The two went on Smith’s property without her knowledge or permission. Smith testified she knew the
general public would occasionally come onto her property to look at the lake, sit on her pier or sit in the hammock, but she
did not expressly invite anyone to do so and did not post “No Trespassing” signs.

On the second night Mohr and Kastner were on Smith’s property in the hammock, one of the trees supporting it fell,
killing Kastner and seriously injuring Mohr. He sued, claiming he could recover from Smith under a theory of premises liability.
The trial court ruled in favor of Smith, which the appellate judges upheld.

“The trial court properly determined that, at the time of the incident, Mohr was, at most, a licensee on Smith’s
property,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote. “[W]e conclude that the designated evidence most favorable to Mohr demonstrates
that Smith’s act of placing a hammock and a bench on her property overlooking the lake was insufficient to constitute
an invitation for the public to enter Smith’s property. Although Smith was aware that members of the public would occasionally
enter her property to view or access the lake, Smith did not invite the public to enter her land. Nothing in the record suggests
that Smith desired, induced, encouraged, or expected the public to enter her property. She merely permitted the public to
occasionally enter her land, so long as they did not cause any trouble. Again, mere permission, as distinguished from an invitation,
is insufficient to transform a licensee into an invitee.”

The judges concluded that Mohr failed to designate any evidence that Smith had knowledge of the allegedly latent danger posed
by the tree.

“Because undisputed evidence leads only to the inference that Smith did not have knowledge of the allegedly latent
danger posed by the tree to which the hammock was attached, the trial court properly determined, as a matter of law, that
Smith did not breach any duty owed to Mohr,” Bradford wrote.

Conversations

0 Comments

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.